Discovering Transitives
In Narratology. In the story am Working on. Spider spins web, loan grows a “bone” -- from riffs given to me, so I let them in.
New Section: Narrativities. Fiction as Rhyme in pursuit of Narrative. As it arises in tandem with narrativity in the char, as itself, a narrative compunction.
Writing fiction, I start with loose first person. There are no facts initially, facts not its “main stream.” Just chewing grass a lask. What I love to call pilfering the Vomitus, its a joke. Slithering as I do for Rhyme, exclamations of trapped Mummy.
Movement is somewhat aflicted in the fix, to the lamentations in da da art — and for aggravated sound, fastens it to the absurd, a riddle piece of hell for sale. But also switching out and in between transitives in the pronoun as voices within voices begin tin sink in. Its something Clarice does with her first person that I can now - get out to on the subjective.
Seem to be developing theories about transitives and the art of smalls, the fold overing going on in small ness of time, where she goes after time alone - up against it - in her last book, mine steals from the vehicle, some syntax too.
Determined to talk about sex as a Char, part of the oil. And also letting in zany culprits. Childhood traumas stewing themselves into zany trill fills. And the intrusion of nonsense rhyme — it stipples da da in as clip a quip, both merging and breaking with Beckett, as per silliness. Joyce does limerrick. My fly does da da? Da da is filled with death "quips" or body parts being cut off…
Leave out the willow wallowing, not on your life would I. Vacillating pollution of wanting, failing, a monstrous littleton, slippery in and out of sludge infestations of language circling around the rim. Spider spins web, loan grows a “bone” are from riffs given to me, so I let them in, on the char as well.
Critical extensions I receive think of as cutlery — being "sourced", emerging through their discovery as the transitive in motion, as a way to take on char. Pronouns at times think of no more than peeps? No stories are starting to get beyond that… DO i let in peeps — yes. But then they cross weave -
Mixy gender language ALAS stuffy the muffy also has bask in the masc on rutter butting in, esp on sex jokes or doubles, poaching violence, as a joke as a limerrick. Buffy, standing over bluff with time itself as edge.
Trills here and there, decided just to let them out. Occurring throughout as an urgency of type, scaring up through rhyme.
Dear Red: The transitive makes us all vehicles. Still hanging with Yeats.
Peace Love and So On.
Humes’ moral calculus is more primitive than the deontologists like Kant and the utilitarians like Bentham, though there’s a lot of overlap. Kant has a duty perspective—things one can never do (lie, torture, murder) and things one must do (obligations like integrity, justice, loyalty, accountability).
Telling the truth, eschewing deceit is a moral duty. A sense of obligation and commitment to moral or ethical standards; respect for persons; cleansing our intentions to act out of moral duty rather than self-interest—these distinguish the ethical person.
Utilitarianism is a type of calculus used in contexts of scarce resources or inescapable damage to someone. Decisions like who gets the kidney, how much collateral damage is acceptable in a bombing, which person to not feed in the Donner Party…The trolley car problem is a classic problem. It’s used in like three episodes of The Good Place on Netflix, which is just incredibly funny and built on these philosophical assumptions re ethical reasoning. Chidi is my hero. He’s so funny.
Hume says what we call "virtuous" makes us feel good from the tips of our toes to the top of our head. Watching a person get tortured or shot with an AK 47 does not usually have this effect. Knowing you can count on someone in times of trouble makes us feel good. "Vicious" is the word for bad. When I heard Trump say, “When you’re a celebrity, you can do anything you want to them. You can kiss them, grab them by the pussy, they like it”—.that was classic vicious, insidiosity, icky wicky poo poo vicious
Hume doesn’t dismiss our brain from moral decisions. He expects us to understand cause and effect, making evidence-based predictions about outcomes. He expected us to be informed about the world and to draw conclusions before taking action about the likelihood of outcomes of pleasure or pain. But reason does not motivate us to behave ethically: The motivation to act requires a sentiment or passion. You can probably name a ton of highly intelligent people who have the morals of a mosquito.
Kohlbergs theory of moral development is flawed I know—for many reasons. He studied only males. To oversimplify, he divides moral development into three phases: self-centered (me, me, me, money, money, money), conventional (deciding not to shoplift because people say its bad and you might get caught), principled (utilitarianism in medicine, law, industry, the military). He concluded from empirical evidence that only 10% of adults reach the highest level.
Carol Gilligan, in her 1982 book "In a Different Voice," criticized Kohlberg's system because his theory was gender-biased and male-centric. He studied only males—unfathomable to me as a literacy researcher where females are on the whole much more adept than males. According to Gilligan, Kohlberg looked at justice, rights, and rules—male moral reasoning—and ignored an "ethic of care”—relationships, care, responsibility for others, female moral reasoning. I know.
Neither the ethic of justice nor the ethic of care is superior to the other in her theory, but both are essential to human moral development. Individuals do consciously take up both perspectives. Her critique led revisions of how moral development is understood and studied. I don’t know about application. To me it brings the circle back around to Hume.
Post-Humanism philosophy really demands a much higher standard of moral development. Being greedy, selfish, vicious, a cheating bleeding weenie don’t make anybody feel good. But now we need to empathize with trees, with elephants, with all living and material things. Passions and emotions seem very distant from the rain forest and the famines and wars. We are called upon to make moral decisions every time we start the engine of a gasoline car. If only 10% ever reach top form we are screwed. Our species has to do better or we will all collectively violate Kants Maxim, the prohibition against suicide.
Its not an argument its a discussin -- time for me is what i call a char char is a theme but it inhabits language for me -- also change and models for eternity -- at the same time